Gisela Stuart: Does the Home Secretary accept that dealing with extremists is not just a problem to be resolved in the United Kingdom? When the Foreign Affairs Committee goes to countries ranging from Morocco, Libya and Saudi Arabia, one of the things that they are most concerned about is access to websites and CDs. Will he therefore work with his colleagues in other countries to deal with those websites and combat those ideas?

Paul Goggins: It is important to strike the balance to which my hon. Friend refers. He never fails to take the opportunity to raise the issue both in Parliament and his constituency—rightly so—and to push the kind of partnerships that can make a difference. Wirral is an action area. It has an antisocial behaviour co-ordinator, whose job it is to ensure that each and every part of my hon. Friend's constituency and the rest of the Wirral gets the appropriate response whenever antisocial behaviour rears its ugly head.

John Butterfill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that police force is already in crisis, despite the figures that he has given? An all-party meeting of Dorset MPs was told only a few days ago that it would not even be possible to fund the force by increasing the council tax element of its funding, because the Government had prevented that, so the force would have to lay off staff. In Bournemouth, we have record numbers of applications for all-night licensing, and funding for the policing of the town centre is already in crisis. Nothing that the Minister has said gives me any reassurance that the situation will not become extremely bad indeed.

Gordon Brown: As Chancellor, I have always understood that the strength of a monetary and fiscal regime is how it performs not only in good years but in this, the toughest and most challenging year for the economy. It has been a tough year, but by facing up to global and domestic inflationary pressures, inflation is not—as it was in the past—above 10 per cent. but 2 per cent. Interest rates are not above 10 per cent. but below 5 per cent. Unemployment is not, as it was in the past, at record highs but record lows.
	The economy is not in recession; growth, even in this toughest year, is at 1.75 per cent. This is the 34th quarter of continued growth under a Labour Government. We are the first Government of any party to achieve eight years of uninterrupted growth since 1805.
	For the fifth successive year, British growth is higher than that of France, Germany, Italy, the euro area and the European Union. British business investment is already rising this year by 3 per cent. and is expected to increase next year by 3 to 3.5 per cent. and in 2007 by 4.5 to 5.25 per cent.As production grows, we expect exports to rise by more than 5 per cent. next year and the year after.
	Globally, there are continuing risks from trade imbalances, exchange rate movements and commodity price shocks. Domestically, monetary policy will continue to monitor closely the housing market and consumer spending. Domestic demand is projected to grow at the same rate of the economy. Overall growth is projected in 2006 at 2 to 2.5 per cent. and in 2007 and 2008 by 2.75 to 3.25 per cent.
	Some people said that, as we moderated the housing market and responded to the oil shock, employment in this country would fall. Some predicted that we would end this year with fewer people in work. In fact, I can report to the House that, in just 12 months, employment in this country has risen by 330,000 to 28.8 million—the highest in this country's history. It is higher in every region and nation of the country.
	This year, the economy has been generating 6,000 new jobs every week and 3,500 new companies are being formed every week. Indeed, of the extra jobs since 1997, almost 1 million have been generated by small businesses alone.
	By tackling youth and long-term unemployment, the new deal has helped ensure that, while unemployment in America is higher than ours—and in France and Germany, it is much higher, at nearly 10 per cent.—in Britain, unemployment is lower than 5 per cent.
	We know that continuing that record of high employment with low inflation demands continued wage responsibility in all sectors. So the Secretary of State for Health is submitting evidence to the pay review body that headline rise in national health service pay should be based on our 2 per cent. inflation target, and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is announcing that, even after taking account of the normal annual increments and performance pay, the total increase in the education pay bill will be just 2.8 per cent. These are both signals of our determination to keep public pay costs under control and to contribute to continued low inflation in this country.
	On this foundation of stability, our task is to match investment with reform in science and skills, infrastructure and housing, and to show that working in partnership with the private sector, we can best meet the challenge of globalisation. Although we have already doubled investment in science, global competition requires us continuously to update our 10-year framework. With, this week, a new public private partnership, supported by £50 million of new public investment, Britain is determined to lead the world in the new frontier of genetics and stem cell research. With the establishment of a new national institute for health research in the NHS, pharmaceutical and biomedical companies have just announced a new £500 million a year investment in Britain, making Britain the leading location for research in new drugs and treatments.
	To support research and development across modern manufacturing, I am publishing today reforms to help access the research and development tax credit. The design of new products and services is now such an important sector that we propose a network of creativity and innovation centres—one in each region—offering start-up help to new design talent and supported by an expanded national centre in London to showcase British design. Because we have learned in the past that the neglect of investment in science held our economy back, we are determined to make the necessary long-term investment, with Government and private sectors working together to make us fully equipped for the global challenges ahead.
	The same is true in skills and education. The successful economies of the global era will be the high-skill economies. Published today is the interim report of Lord Leitch, the first long-term assessment of Britain's skills needs. Since 1997, we have more than doubled investment in education, and the Leitch report finds that the number of adults with skills has risen from 79 per cent. to 86 per cent. But workers will, on average, change their job seven times during their working life, and the vast majority of today's workers will need to train or retrain for tomorrow's skills. The final Leitch proposals will come next year, but to step up the pace of change now, the national employer training programme, which offers free training for employees and help for all small firms with their costs, will be expanded nationwide from next summer to provide training in 50,000 companies for 300,000 new employees a year.
	Some people seek to abolish the new deal, but, more than ever, a Britain equipped for the global economy needs a new deal that continuously equips people for jobs and skills. So this Government will not abolish the new deal; we will strengthen it. In eight areas of the country, teenagers who have too often fallen through the net and are receiving no training will be offered learning agreements: a training wage in return for gaining skills. No teenager in our country should be denied the opportunity to acquire the skills and employment that they need. With opportunities come responsibilities. The new deal pilots to help lone parents back to work will be extended to new areas of the country. From April, for men and women unemployed for six months or over, we will pilot personal action plans that involve compulsory interviews and intensive work plans.
	Our third economic challenge is to make more affordable housing available for the rising number of families seeking homes. In the last eight years, low inflation and low interest rates have given homebuyers the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years. There are 1 million more homeowners now than in 1997. But to build more affordable homes of high quality in strong communities, Britain must—as the Barker report recommended—put in place long-term reforms in planning, land use, the competitiveness of the construction industry, and infrastructure in both the private and social sectors across the country.
	The Deputy Prime Minister is today responding to the joint representations of the CBI, the Town and Country Planning Association, and Shelter. He is publishing new planning guidelines that will bridge the gap between the 150,000 new houses that we build each year and the 190,000 new households that are formed, in particular to help to build houses that young couples can afford. To provide land for new houses while protecting and improving the environment, he is asking local authorities to bring forward more brownfield areas for development. Where proposed new housing is of high quality, meeting the design code, local authorities will be obliged to accelerate planning consent. The construction industry must also rise to the challenge, particularly of investing in skills. To widen the number of investors in the residential and commercial property markets, we will this month publish legislation to set up in Britain real estate investment trusts to increase the funding for new property developments.
	Because our aim is to build not just homes but communities, and to fund the new roads, schools, hospitals and infrastructure that convert estates into genuine communities, building on the recommendation of Kate Barker, we are today publishing for consultation proposals for a local planning gain supplement, which will give local authorities a fair share of planning gains to invest locally. Investment in social housing has almost doubled since 1997 but will have to rise further. We are announcing pilot projects today to encourage local authorities to bring derelict sites back into use and to build new housing for rent.
	We know that shared equity has an increasing role to play in helping young couples in all our constituencies to get on the first rung of the housing ladder, and I can tell the House how we plan to extend equity share schemes. I can announce that three of the biggest building societies and banks have joined the Government as partners in shared equity; that building companies, including four of the biggest builders, are also now able to offer shared equity purchases; that we are now in discussion with investment companies on their possible involvement; and that we see a possible role for housing associations in extending shared equity.
	Our aim is a new consensus across our country on the extension of home ownership and affordable housing—public and private sectors working and investing together to strengthen the economy, protect the environment and meet the housing needs not just of some but of all in our country.
	As part of the figures that I am publishing today, let me confirm that already this year the first £4.7 billion of savings identified by the Gershon review have been achieved, with the Government's target of £3 billion in procurement savings exceeded by £1 billion, one year early. On target, we are also seeing a further 18,500 reduction in civil service posts, including 10,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions and 3,500 from Revenue and Customs. I can also confirm that we are on target with the relocation of a further 2,000 civil service posts out of London. Ahead of schedule, £5.7 billion of assets have been sold, on target to meet our objective of £30 billion of sales by 2010. In the coming year, we will conduct a zero-based asset review.
	In addition to the new measures that we have announced to implement our new risk-based approach to regulation, I am proposing at the EU Finance Ministers meeting tomorrow competitiveness tests for all new and existing European regulations. I am closing a relief under which, for tax reasons only, people are being persuaded without changing what they do to set up a company, replacing the £10,000 starting allowance with a rise in the investment allowances for smaller business to 50 per cent.
	I have today written to the European Commission asking for a derogation so that over 1 million businesses with turnovers not at the current two thirds of a million but at one and a third million or less will be able to take advantage of more flexible VAT payment options that will suit their business needs.
	After consultation with British film makers, I can announce a new film tax credit to support British films. To increase support directly for producers, we can guarantee a credit worth 16 per cent. for large-budget films and at least 20 per cent. for small-budget films.
	Anti-avoidance and fraud measures published today, including new requirements for disclosure, will address artificial tax arrangements involving capital gains and losses, trusts and offshore companies, rebated oils and the misuse of self-invested personal pension schemes to purchase second homes.
	From reallocations to local councils from Departments, £305 million in 2006 and £508 million in 2007 will be made available to reduce pressures on the council tax. Later this afternoon my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will give full details to the House.
	I can tell the House that the current budget deficit, which reached a peak of £55 billion in 1993, will fall from £19 billion last year to £10 billion this year and then to £4 billion, and then zero. There will then be a surplus of £7 billion, then £11 billion and then £13 billion in future years, meeting the fiscal rule in this cycle by more than £16 billion, in contrast to the deficit over the last cycle, 1986–97, of £157 billion.
	It is on the basis of this fiscal rule and our second fiscal rule, the sustainable investment rule, that the Government will plan our 2007 spending review, including our response to the long-term reviews on transport, pensions, energy and skills. Our second rule allows us to borrow for essential public investment, as long as there is a sustainable level of debt.
	In 1997, the capital investment being made by this country in schools and colleges was just half a billion pounds a year. Today, we are investing £7 billion a year, and we are on track to renovate 12,000 more primary and secondary schools in our country. In 1997, Britain invested just over £1 billion a year in building and renovating our hospitals. Today the figure is £5 billion and it is rising to £8 billion by 2008. And investment in transport is doubling.
	In total, net public investment, which was just £5 billion a year in its overall total in 1997, will this year be £26 billion and next year £29 billion. Even with this record investment, we meet our second rule, which ensures borrowing for investment within sustainable levels of debt. Net debt levels will be 36.5 per cent. this year and in future years 37 and 37 per cent., and then 38, 38 and 38 per cent., at every point lower than today's 44 per cent. in France, 47 per cent. in America, 60 per cent. in Germany and 80 per cent. in Japan. So, our debt levels are lower than those of our major competitors. Even as we borrow not for short-term consumption but for long-term investment, our borrowing levels are lower than that of our competitors. Total net borrowing, which reached £51 billion in 1993, will fall from £37 billion this year to £34 billion, £31 billion and then £26 billion, £23 billion and £22 billion. Cyclically adjusted, our net borrowing this year is just 2.2 per cent. of GDP, and it will fall to 1.6, 1.6 and 1.6 per cent., and then 1.5 and 1.4 per cent. in the years that follow.
	Within these figures public investment, which I remind the House was just £5 billion in 1997, will continue to rise to £31 billion in 2007, then £32 billion, £34 billion and finally £35 billion in 2010. That is on average £40 million a year today per parliamentary constituency rising to £55 million a year by 2010, contrasted to just £10 million per constituency in the years before 1997. In just five years, from now until 2010, Britain will see more investment in its social and economic fabric than in the entire 18 years from 1979 to 1997.
	Our two fiscal years enable us to meet the country's priority to invest more not just in schools and hospitals but in transport, housing and, of course, in sport and the Olympics. I have, however, noticed representations that a third fiscal rule should be adopted. It is, each and every year, irrespective of the needs of the economy and the case for investing in public services, to restrict public spending growth to a lower rate than the growth of the economy in order to cut taxes. On closer examination, what has been called sharing the proceeds of growth would mean this year spending at least £12 billion lower and, by next year, £17 billion lower than plans, and I have concluded that this rule, however rebranded, is simply a new gloss on an old proposal advanced before previous Budgets, which would undermine our public services, our infrastructure and our economy.
	It is our commitment to investment for the long term that allows us not only to address global economic challenges but to combine prosperity with fairness to all. Within the fiscal figures we can now do more to help families, the elderly and young people, and to meet our obligations on security and defence.
	Defending our country is the first duty of Government. In response to the bombings in London in July and to the terrorist threat, it is right to do all that we can to support our police, our armed forces and our security and emergency services, whose bravery we commend and on whom we depend each and every day for our security and safety. Since 11 September we have doubled the budget for national security. Today we are making available an additional £135 million for security and counter-terrorism, and we are providing an additional £580 million for the armed forces for Iraq, Afghanistan and other international obligations.
	At the end of a year in which we have seen the doubling of aid to Africa, promised at the G8 summit, and of debt relief, multilateral and bilateral, to 100 per cent.—which is just the start of what we must do in future years—the Secretary of State for International Development, to expedite the critical negotiations on trade, is offering to treble Britain's aid for trade to £100 million. It is unacceptable that the world is insufficiently prepared for natural disasters, so Britain will contribute to an expanded United Nations emergency fund. We will also contribute £50 million to a new IMF shocks facility.
	Child tax credit is benefiting 6 million families, with 1.5 million poor children already lifted out of poverty. The mobility of our economy is now such that each year 200,000 men and women who move into new and better jobs see their family incomes rise by more than £10,000. Some have suggested that we should cut back child tax credit. This I refuse to do because, with child benefit, child tax credit is doing more to help families meet the costs of bringing up their children, and helps more families out of poverty, than any single measure from any previous Government.
	Although a case has been made for fixed awards based on last year's incomes, to which we will continue to listen, it would be better to have a system that responds flexibly to changes. While requiring earlier notification of changes in circumstances, the Paymaster General is today making a detailed statement that from April next year we will allow annual income changes not of £2,500 but of up to £25,000. That will cover 95 per cent. of all income rises during a year. Where recovery takes place during the year, we will adopt new rules on repayment to address potential hardship.
	Our policy is opportunity for all, and it is matched by responsibility expected from all. Today the Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills are jointly publishing plans showing how parents who want to do their best by their children can be given the support that they need, from child care tax credits and maternity pay to support for parenting at Sure Start centres and the increase in mentoring for children in care that we are announcing today.
	But what parents often seek is early help, the most effective measure and the best hope we have to keep children out of trouble later. There are a dozen agencies that often duplicate each other's efforts without reaching that troubled child. To inform decisions in our spending review, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is piloting a new concept—that of one lead professional, based around the school, using funds brought together in one budget, with the authority to identify problems early and the freedom and capacity to intervene quickly and do what is right before a child's future is blighted.
	The oil shock of this year has led to calls for more efficient use of energy and support for alternative fuels. Today I am enhancing the capital allowances for production of the most environmentally friendly biofuels. That will include help for oil companies to meet the agreed biofuel obligations.
	Carbon capture and storage protect the environment from carbon emissions by containing them at source and transporting them to the North sea, where they make it easier to extract remaining oil from mature fields. I can announce a new partnership with the Norwegian Government. Together we will consider the right level of incentives to speed up the adoption of this important new technology. Because the United Kingdom can also become a world leader in clean coal, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today announcing further support for clean coal and all carbon abatement technologies. That is part of our wider energy review.
	Because we need to encourage energy efficiency in small and medium-sized businesses, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is today announcing further funding for the Carbon Trust.
	So that all import capacity for gas is put to use, Ofgem is announcing today that it will use its powers to intervene where necessary to ensure that importers either "use or lose" their capacity to import. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have today written to the European Commission supporting Ofgem's call for an urgent investigation to make sure that this winter there are no blockages to the full use of the interconnector with Europe and thus no restriction on imports of gas from Europe.
	Our economy has had to withstand an oil price rise from around $25 to a current price of around $55, which is also close to the level of almost all future projections. Returns in the North sea are now nearly 40 per cent. on capital, compared with ordinary returns of 13 per cent. With the tax on new development in the North sea now lower than in the USA, the Gulf of Mexico, Norway, Italy and Australia, and in order to strike the right balance between producers and consumers, I will raise the supplementary North sea charge from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent., while giving new incentives to companies for exploration and development of the most difficult fields by extending the exploration expenditure supplement to all their ring-fenced activity.
	I am also now able to freeze petrol and diesel and road fuel gases duties for this full financial year at an Exchequer cost for the full year of £600 million. I am also able to set aside resources, so that the winter fuel payment—the universal payment tax free to all pensioner households—will be £200 not just this year, but next year, the year after that and every single year of this Parliament, and it will be £300 for the over-80s, paid every year before Christmas.
	In addition to the winter payment, I want to ensure that for pensioner households energy costs are as low as possible while ensuring the most efficient and effective heating system against the winter cold. Insulation and central heating can reduce heating bills for the typical pensioner household by £300 a year. The energy savings are so great that no pensioner household should be without insulation and no pensioner should be without help to install central heating. After many years, it is time to complete that insulation and the installation of central heating where it is possible to do so.
	The Government's warm front programme has so far insulated 1 million homes but there are still 500,000 with no central heating and 2 million without insulation. Separate announcements will be made for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. By setting aside an additional £300 million over the next three years, the Government's warm front programme will not only be able to offer pensioner households on pension credit free installation of central heating, but we will offer all other pensioner households without central heating £300 towards the costs of installing it. We can go further. I am grateful to the energy companies that are matching our offer by announcing this afternoon that they will extend their offer of insulation. There will be free insulation for all pensioner households on pension credit, with, for all other pensioner households, between £125 and £175 paid towards the costs of insulation.
	Let me conclude with a set of measures in an area which is not fashionable today, but I believe vital for the long-term future of our country. It is an area where we can make progress only if Government invest and work together with the voluntary and community organisations that are at the heart of every community in this country. A responsible society requires strict measures to combat vandalism and violence. It also requires that society fulfils its responsibility to encourage what is best in our young people, and we have to do far more where in the past too little has been done, investing in youth and community facilities that are modern, relevant and welcoming for teenagers up and down the country.
	Today, I can announce an agreement with the banks and building societies that unclaimed assets held in bank accounts will, once realised, be put to use to improve youth and community facilities throughout Britain. It is right for us as a Government to make a start now. First, the Government are joining with seven of Britain's leading companies to launch the country's first national youth community service. With up to £100 million of initial finance, it will fund gap-year volunteering in Britain and abroad for young people who otherwise could not afford gap years, and it will fund part-time and full-time community service in every constituency. Secondly, because we want the 2012 Olympics and, beyond that, any English bid for the 2018 World cup, to regenerate sport for young people in our country, the Culture Secretary and I are today announcing details of a national sports foundation, modelled on the Football Foundation's successful investment in football facilities. We will invest new money in improving facilities, amenities and participation across all sports in every area of the country.
	But as the Youth Green Paper said, more can be done not only to support wider youth services, but to put decisions about the programmes for young people in the hands of young people themselves. So as a first step, we will provide finance for each local authority to set up a young people's fund; for amenities and activities run by young people, and decided on by young people themselves. On average, half a million pounds will be provided for each local authority over the next two years, so that they can strengthen local communities.
	Stability is the foundation. More investment, not less; responsibility from all; opportunity for all, not just the few: I commend this pre-Budget statement to the House.

George Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Chancellor was supposed to come to the House to deliver an accurate report on the state of the British economy; instead, his speech sounded more like tractor production figures from the old Soviet Union. This is a tragic story of a Chancellor who has been forced to wait so long to get into No. 10 that his reputation in charge of No. 11 is crumbling. This is the iron Chancellor, who has single-handedly destroyed the public finances; the prudent Chancellor, whose means-testing has devastated pension savings; the business-friendly Chancellor, who is presiding over the lowest rate of investment in business since records began; the progressive Chancellor, whose own shambolic tax credit scheme has left families relying on food parcels; the long-serving Chancellor, who is now presiding over a long-term decline in this economy's ability to compete. No wonder he looks so gloomy. The longer he stays at the Treasury, the more his chickens are coming home to roost. For this is a Chancellor who is the road-block to reform; a Chancellor who is now holding Britain back.
	Let us look at those growth forecasts. In March, the Chancellor told us that the economy would grow by 3.5 per cent. In September, he downgraded that to 2.5 per cent. and today—in case you missed it, Mr. Speaker, because he rushed through that bit—he downgraded the growth forecast again, to 1.75 per cent. He also downgraded it for next year. I do not remember him telling the electorate before the general election that the economy was facing a tough and challenging year. What he told the country at the time of the election about the state of the economy was not true, and it is difficult to believe that he did not know it at the time.
	When the Chancellor was comparing us with other countries in his statement, why did he not want to tell us that this year our economy is growing more slowly than 18 of the 25 members of the European Union—slower, to date, than Germany, Ireland and Spain? Why did he not tell us that our growth in the last quarter was slower than every major economy in the world except Italy?
	The Chancellor blames the high price of oil, but that hardly explains why our oil-exporting economy is growing slower than other oil-importing competitors. He blames weak overseas markets, but almost every other developed economy is growing faster. The Governor of the Bank of England told us the true cause last month. He said that a "sharp rise" in taxes has caused a "sharp slowing" of household incomes and economic growth. But what is the Chancellor's response today? It is more stealth taxes, including a doubling of the supplementary tax rate on oil companies—[Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] He can go back to Scotland and tell them about that. We also heard about a new land development tax—a tax on affordable homes—which is something that all Labour Governments do when they run out of money.
	With all the Chancellor's extra taxes, it is amazing that he still has a budget deficit. But he does—and that is another forecast that he got wrong. First, he told us that there would be an £8 billion surplus this year. Then in March he changed that to a £6 billion deficit. Today, the deficit has gone up again. Why was he in such a rush to go through his borrowing figures? He should have slowed down. He should have told us that he plans to borrow £37 billion, £34 billion, £31 billion, £26 billion, £23 billion and £22 billion, or £151 billion over the next five years.
	The fiscal rules were supposed to keep the deficit and the debt under control. The Chancellor was meant to have fixed his spending to fit his golden rule. Instead, he fixed his golden rule to fit his spending. I congratulate the Chancellor on finally adopting our policy of making Government statistics independent, so that he cannot fiddle with the nation's balance sheet anymore. Why does not he also set up an independent body to monitor the golden rule? That way, he will not be able to claim that an entire economic cycle began without anybody else noticing.
	The Chancellor talks about the great challenge that Britain faces from China and India, but with falling research and development, falling productivity growth and falling business investment, his policies are simply not rising to that challenge. They are holding Britain back. In 1998, he said that
	"Productivity . . . is a fundamental yardstick of economic performance".
	Does he remember saying that? Well, he did. So let us use his own yardstick. In 1998, productivity growth averaged 2.75 per cent. Today, it is 0.5 per cent., or one fifth of the rate that he inherited. If productivity was his fundamental yardstick, he has failed fundamentally on his very own measure.
	Unreformed public services are holding Britain back, too. The Prime Minister will remember telling his party conference that each time he had tried to reform the public services he wished that he had gone further. Well, who stopped him? Who frustrated him? It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the roadblock to reform. He blocked health reform. He blocked education reform. He blocked welfare reform. Now he is blocking pension reform, too.
	With all the talk of reports in the pre-Budget statement, why did not the Chancellor mention the Turner report more than once? The fact is that he sabotaged the Turner report, even though it is his means-testing and his pensions tax that has destroyed savings. The man who created the pensions crisis is the very same man who is standing in the way of providing a solution. No wonder Lord Turner describes the Chancellor's position as
	"not a contribution to a sane argument".
	How the Prime Minister must love Lord Turner. This country needs a Chancellor who is interested in reforming Britain for the future, not in defending his failed policies of the past.
	I have no doubt that when the Chancellor gets up, he will deliver in public all those one-liners that he normally reserves for the Prime Minister in private, but let him answer these simple questions. Why were his growth forecasts so wrong? Why is the deficit so high? Why is productivity so weak? Why is investment in business down? Why is red tape up? Why is bureaucracy up? Why are taxes on the rise? Why did he sabotage Turner? Why does he block every real attempt to reform public services? Let us hear his answers. Let us hear why he is holding Britain back.
	The Chancellor could have used today's report to prepare our economy for the future, to set out the reforms this country so desperately needs, but he did not. Instead, this is a Chancellor forced into the humiliation of admitting that he got it all wrong. This is a Chancellor who is past his sell-by date. This is a Chancellor who is holding Britain back.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman complains about investment. Business investment was £87 billion in 1997; it is £110 billion this year. How can he say that there has been a collapse in business investment when business investment continues to rise? He says that the new deal is not working, but we have 330,000 more people in jobs this year. He complains about our regulation, but we are getting rid of some of the ridiculous regulatory agencies created by the Conservative Government. We the Labour Government are taking to Europe the proposal to put a competitiveness test on regulations and to end the gold-plating of European Union regulations.
	The Conservative party's policies are to abolish the new deal, to cut the child tax credit and to announce—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said that our growth was lower than that of Spain and Ireland. What he did not say is that our growth is higher than that of France, Germany, Italy, the euro area and the whole European Union? If he wants to look at differences in growth in the economy, let us look at the comparison between two recessions under the Conservative Government and growth in every year under a Labour Government.
	The hon. Gentleman's policies are to abolish the new deal, to scrap the child tax credit—[Hon. Members: "What are your policies?"] Conservative Members do not like it, do they? At the last election, they said that they would spend more—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps, one day, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) may have a chance to put a case, but not today. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is replying.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a great knowledge of these issues, having worked on many of them as an official at the Her Majesty's Treasury. She takes a special interest in science and the environmental issues that led us to introduce the proposals on biofuels. Let us be honest: the science base of this country—one of the most inventive countries in the world—has been neglected over the years. The fact that we now have a 10-year plan for science and are doubling investment in science is essential for our global economic future. The medical investments that are now under way as a result of the partnership between the NHS, universities and pharmaceutical companies will lead to £500,000 of new investment in the next few years, with the potential for £1 billion-worth of new investment just in medicine and medical science. That is one step towards Britain leading the way in a range of medical and other sciences, which means that we will be well placed to be one of the great success stories of the global era.

Eric Pickles: I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement, and particularly of the supporting documents. It has been a good and worthy tradition that we get plenty of time to respond to this particular statement, and it is partly due to him giving me so much information that I missed the first 15 seconds of his statement. No disrespect was intended.
	I welcome the move towards a three-year programme and settlement, which is extremely sensible, and the Opposition support the Government in their aim to achieve that in the long term.
	About a month ago, we were regaled with headlines in the national press suggesting that the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the Department were wandering around Whitehall with a begging bowl for local government, as previous settlements had proved to be inadequate. That followed the same practice last year. The House will recall the views last year of a senior and, sadly, anonymous mandarin, who, when asked to spare additional funds for the hon. Gentleman's Department, told the asking official to vacate his office as expeditiously as possible. To emphasise the point, the mandarin preferred to use the shorter Anglo-Saxon version of that request, and it seems that the spirit and the gesture remain firmly embedded in this settlement.
	We were told that this year things would be different. We were told that the one-off bung of £1.4 billion would be added permanently to the local government settlement. It now looks like a £2 billion bung over two years. It was a settlement and then an amendment, but it need not be so. In the pre-panto season, we were promised a Robin Hood settlement in which hard-pressed local authorities would receive resources to do their job properly. On examination of the hon. Gentleman's statement, it is clear that the settlement would not please Robin Hood, but would find considerable favour with Guy of Gisborne, chief torturer to the sheriff of Nottingham.
	The settlement envisages an increase in council tax of twice the rate of inflation. This year, council tax payers will see their bills approach an 80 per cent. hike since Labour came to office. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the small print in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, on page 229, reveals that council tax receipts are forecast to rocket by a massive 7.1 per cent.—an extra £1.5 billion snatched from hard-working families and pensioners? That is an intolerable burden, particularly at a time when the Government have allowed a shameful drop in the take-up of council tax benefit.
	Next year, like this year, we will see the sad parade of old-age pensioners being threatened with jail. Next year, like this year, we will see significant cuts in services by councils trying to keep their tax increases to as reasonable a level as possible. Next year, like this year, we will see that the optimism of the Minister's statement, as council budget meetings are held, will prove to be a false hope and a bitter reality.
	Last year, we were promised that Sir Michael Lyons would have reported on this year's settlement. In October, we were promised an interim report this autumn. In today's pre-Budget statement, there was not a mention of that interim report. When will we receive it? Will it be before Christmas, after Christmas or in the early spring?—[Interruption.] It seems that the Minister of Communities and Local Government suggests early spring. It is no use to talk about an increase in funding without talking also about an increase in burden. The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who I am pleased to see in his usual place, became a late convert when addressing this problem. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's handiwork can be detected in the statement, and I am sure that many councillors will be grateful for that.
	I understand that there will be a written statement today from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the levels of licence fees that a local authority can charge. I understand also that there will still be a lack of clarity on the level of costs that local authorities face. Will the Minister give an undertaking that local authority taxpayers will not have to fund any part of the burden? How will the Government ensure that the full start-up costs or new licensing burdens on local authorities will be fully met? In particular, how will the cost of appeals be fully met?
	Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a discretionary fare scheme for pensioners. The Minister will recall that I raised the problem of floor authorities, which he has mentioned. These are authorities that are in the process of losing grant across the board. Each year their losses are limited to the amount that is specified for the floor.
	If the money designated for concessionary fares was simply included in the floor calculations, many district councils would effectively receive nothing for concessionary fares. Will the Minister clarify the position? Will he confirm that the £200 pensioners' discount was a pre-election, one-year wonder and has now disappeared? Were not the promises made to pensioners by the Government of a £200 discount on their council tax merely a simple one-year pre-election bribe? Will he further confirm that that has now gone? The Deputy Prime Minister tabled an order bearing on the local authority pension scheme. It is identical to the one submitted, only to be withdrawn, a year ago. That created a unique double U-turn, separated only by a general election.
	We have heard about the 85-year-old rule, but what of the rest? Can the Minister give an assurance that no part of the burden of the Government's change of approach to the local government pension scheme will fall on council tax payers?
	The Government, against the wishes of the public, are seeking to impose a regional police force. Will the Minister give an indication of how large the increase is expected to be on the police precept to pay for the rearrangement of the furniture in police headquarters? Does he recognise that the money would have been better spent on catching criminals rather than wasting it on Powerpoint presentations at headquarters?
	There is the issue of external finance. The new planning gain supplement is nothing more than a new Labour land tax and, just like the old Labour land tax, it will fail. No doubt the House will have an opportunity to debate the issue in some detail. However, I have a few questions about the financial division of the tax. How will it be divided between the Government, the regions and local councils? It looks like a rip-off by the regions. Given that it is to be collected by HM Revenue and Customs, can we be sure that there will be a return to local people? It has the appearance of another stealth tax.
	Given that there is a fragile housing market, is the Minister worried that, perversely, the approach might dry up housing developments? As for London, does the increase include the Olympic precept? What protection is there from the excessive city hall demands by Mayor Livingstone that he will offer the people of London?
	The council tax is now in deep trouble. There is no sign of it coming out of intensive care. It is kept going by whip-rounds and the odd bone from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not a strategy for independent living—it is a recipe for delay in the hope that something will turn up or that Ministers will move on to a new job. There will be another year with bills going through the roof; another year with increases that are twice the rate of inflation; another year with the council tax being Labour's stealth tax. The Government have yet again let down the people.

Alan Johnson: I would be prepared to consider that again. We found some complications with it, but there is every opportunity to look into that in Committee.
	Providing genuine choice is important for the individuals concerned and for the companies for which they work, but it is also important for the country's continued economic prosperity. The Government are determined to increase the proportion of people in work from 75 per cent., which is the highest of any G7 country, to 80 per cent., a level only achieved in Iceland—that is the country, incidentally, not the retail outlet.
	The so-called family-friendly agenda, which has a crucial economic dimension, was neglected for too long. When we came into power in 1997, a father could watch the birth of his child in the evening and be compelled to go to work the next morning. We established the entitlement to paid paternity leave for the first time in this country.

Alan Johnson: In terms of maternity leave, the hon. Gentleman well knows that small businesses get 104.5 per cent. reimbursed, unlike larger companies. He was a distinguished member of the Committee that considered the Employment Bill. We also increased the level of national insurance contributions that determines the 104.5 per cent. so that more small firms managed to benefit from it. In terms of the arrangements, we have been meticulous in trying to keep the cost to an absolute minimum. In terms of maternity leave and its extension, we have introduced, as small businesses wanted us to, various arrangements to give practical assistance.

Alan Johnson: As the chorus behind me is pointing out, that would be illegal. The hon. Gentleman makes the argument that we heard when we introduced right to request, when we introduced the national minimum wage, when we introduced adoptive leave—in fact, on every occasion when we have tackled that agenda. Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recognise that it is an important agenda. It is about time their party adopted a positive approach to it. As soon as we get anywhere near setting up decent, civilised, minimum standards in the workplace, we hear a chorus of, "This will reduce people's ability to recruit staff." Yes, that is a crucial concern that needs to be tackled and we have tried very hard to ensure that it is, with some success.

Alan Johnson: I think that that survey, if it is accurate, was about interchangeable leave, which has now turned into additional paternity leave, and the idea that small businesses would have to police a system in which they had to know that the mother had returned to work before they could give authority for the father to take the additional paternity leave. That is why we have taken a power in the Bill to ensure that we are able to consult widely. We have ideas, which will probably emerge during this debate, about how to achieve that using a very light touch.
	The issues that small businesses mentioned to us included the rule that maternity leave and maternity pay start on different days and the complication that that produces. Small businesses asked why it could not all start on the same day and whether the rate could be a daily rate, rather than a weekly one. The latter would help with another issue that they raised, which was that if a woman was going to be away from the workplace for up to 12 months, there should an opportunity to bring her back in—for a day's training, for example—with the agreement of both sides and without penalty. If that happens now, the woman loses a week's maternity pay, just for coming back for a refresher day to get used to new technology. Those are practical considerations, as is small businesses' request that a woman who returns from maternity leave before the end of that leave should have to give more than four weeks' notice, which is all she has to give now. We have therefore doubled that requirement to eight weeks, because that is a legitimate and practical thing to do. In that and many other ways, we have shown that we are keen to help small businesses to deal with these matters.

Alan Johnson: I was talking about right to request costing £80. When we introduced right to request—I see several faces familiar from the time spent scrutinising that legislation—we were told that it would be the end of civilisation itself, that it would be horrendously bureaucratic and that it would affect people's jobs, but that simply has not happened.
	The cost to business of the maternity leave provisions has hardly figured in the representations. Concerns have been voiced about paternity leave and the extension of right to request, but little concern has been expressed about providing that a mother should have nine months' paid maternity leave instead of six months and that that should eventually increase to 12 months. That has widespread support.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the consultation on the regulations is important, particularly in relation to carers for adults and disabled people, many of whom do not regard themselves as carers at all? They would not immediately recognise that they are entitled to a request for flexible working, for example, because they are motivated by a sense of duty and loyalty, and they do not regard themselves as carers.

Theresa May: It sounds like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is rather too easily gratified.
	In my role as shadow Secretary of State for the family, I have opened both debates for the official Opposition, which shows that we are more interested than the Government in joined-up thinking. The fact that I have been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who is a member of our Department of Trade and Industry Front-Bench team, shows that we want to achieve a balance between family and business needs. I urge the Government to ensure that while they are going through interesting and difficult times—the leadership, pensions reform and education reform—they do not lose sight of delivering the important aims of both this Bill and the Childcare Bill, which will have a significant impact on both families and businesses across the country.
	The Secretary of State has referred to the movement among many businesses up and down the country to understand and deliver on the need for more flexible working practices. Small businesses often find it difficult to enact such provisions, but they often provide flexible working, although they would not perceive it as such—they perceive it as ensuring that long-standing or expert members of their work force can be kept within the workplace.
	Conservative Members recognise that for many families, balancing the demands of family and career is incredibly difficult. Recent polling by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that nearly seven in 10 women and men agreed or agreed strongly that women's and men's lives are becoming more alike in terms of their need to balance work and family life. The poll also found that 70 per cent. of people were concerned about what family life would be like for their children and grandchildren, and more than six in 10 were concerned about spending enough time with their family. Indeed, the EOC polling showed that people were more concerned about those issues than they were about the state of the health service or crime in their local area. Many families simply have no choice about whether one or both parents goes out to work, and the kind of support that we were discussing last week on the Childcare Bill and now on this Bill can make the difference for families between coping and not.
	Many new mothers want to get back to work as quickly as possible. They want to enjoy a good career and a good relationship with their children, but they sometimes find it hard to do so, because of the prohibitive costs of child care. Other mothers would like to take longer off work to care for their newborn child, but simply do not feel that they can afford the absence from work. Both are equally valid choices, and both put mothers under enormous strain.
	We all recognise that the early months in a child's life are incredibly important and that the positive effects on a child's development from time spent at home with their mother can be hugely beneficial in many cases, which is why we support the Government's intention to extend the period of maternity pay to 39 weeks. Measures which give parents more choice will continue to gain our backing, but many parents will still feel unable to take so long off work. Sometimes they do not want to be away from their jobs for such a long time, but in many cases they are forced back to work earlier than they might wish because they cannot afford to stay at home on the current provision.
	We have always said that new parents should have a real choice about whether and for how long they stay at home with their newborn child. All families are different, and their needs and priorities are different, and the system of maternity pay should be as flexible as possible to meet those needs. Many families will find that the pay offered over the nine-month period is still not enough, which is why we announced plans at the last election to give mothers the option of receiving the total sum that the Government propose to pay over nine months over six months instead. They would thereby have had a significantly increased sum of maternity pay over those six months. We wanted to offer parents a real choice between that significantly increased maternity pay for six months and the current level of maternity pay over nine months and to put them back in control of whether and when they go back to work.
	Earlier this year, in an article in The House Magazine, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) set out several proposals that he believed that the Government should be pursuing in order to ensure that businesses were protected as regards maternity and paternity pay. He cited:
	"An increase to the current 28 days notice period for all women returning to work . . . Central administration of maternity benefits with the opportunity for larger businesses to opt out of a central scheme"
	and
	"clearer guidelines for communication between employers and employees during the maternity leave period."
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that the Government will move on at least two of those points, notably on the increased period of notice, which will be welcomed by all employers, and on communication between employers and employers during the maternity leave period. For many mothers, it is extremely important to continue to have contact with the workplace, not only to keep abreast of developments but to feel that they are still in touch with the workplace and have not been forgotten and left to one side.
	I note that those matters are to be taken up in regulations instead of being covered in the Bill. I return to the point that was ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who cited several clauses that refer to regulations. A significant amount of the Bill's detail is subject to regulations. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to publishing draft regulations as soon as possible. It would be preferable if that could be dealt with in Committee, but at least we should be able to look at the detail when the Bill returns on Report. This is a short Bill, and an awful lot of it will be subject to what those regulations say.

Theresa May: Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point for my hon. Friend when he winds up the debate. The power in clause 13 would certainly give the Government the right to do that. I accept my hon. Friend's overall point about the need to ensure that we strike a balance between the public and private sectors. Indeed, many people are exercised at the moment about the balance between public and private sector pension entitlements. There is a significant and growing gap there, and the Secretary of State has recently made decisions that will encourage that gap to grow. It is incumbent on the Government to look upon themselves as an employer, and to ensure that their house is in order. Another area in which I am afraid they do not come up to the standard that we would expect is that of equal pay. I understand that, while the pay gap in this country is generally between 17 and 18 per cent., it is 21 per cent. in the civil service. The Government really need to look at these issues, and to put their house in order.
	On the regulations that the Government will use to introduce the rules on leave entitlement, it is important that they should discuss with business the impact that any sudden change would have, and that they ensure that any change is introduced in a way that would reduce the severity of that impact on business. A balance needs to be struck between meeting the needs of employees and ensuring that any new provision does not have a detrimental impact on keeping the business environment competitive.
	Families are increasingly looking to us in Parliament to provide the framework to help them cope with the pressures of modern life. Businesses are looking to us to ensure that we do not tie their hands and make them unable to compete in a fiercely competitive global market. It is up to us in this place to ensure that we strike the right balance between being family friendly and business friendly. We on this side of the House will work constructively to achieve that.

Liz Blackman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker for calling me. I do not think that I shall use up all my allotted time this evening.
	I e-mailed an officer from the National Autistic Society—which supports the aims of the all-party group on autism—for a briefing on the Bill. He e-mailed me back to say:
	"We focus on clause 12 on flexible working, and it is short because we are basically happy with it!"
	I should like to tell the Secretary of State that I am pleased, too. Clause 12 builds on the flexible working provisions in the Employment Act 2002, which confers on parents of children under six, or of youngsters up to 18 with a disability, a statutory right to request a change in their terms and conditions, so that they can move into either part-time or home working, or some other mode of flexible working that fits in with their needs. The Act places on employers a duty seriously to consider such requests, while also providing them with certain grounds for refusing them. It is worth reading those provisions. They aim to protect the employment base and have increased the confidence of employers to move into flexible working, which has led to greater productivity in the business world.
	It was inevitable that the provisions in clause 12 would be introduced after they had been signalled in 2004, and they are the result of extensive consultation. They extend the right to request flexible working to those people who care for sick and disabled adults, and they will come into force in 2007. That represents a ground-breaking change, and it has been introduced in response to the relevant evidence. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, there are 4.4 million carers of working age in this country, one in five of whom have either left a job or been unable to take one because they could not balance all the different responsibilities involved. Some 2 million people take on a caring responsibility each year, and the demographic trend forecasts that more and more of us will become carers. This provision in the Bill will give such people the right to balance their lives.
	There is also a sound economic case for businesses to take such people into their work force under these conditions, given the wasted potential of carers with skills and talents who could be contributing to the economy in a tight labour market. It is grossly wasteful not to use them. The provisions will also offer carers, many of whom are on low incomes, the opportunity to boost their income and to put aside a little more for their pension provision.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that we must get right the definition of carers, and I am extremely pleased that this knotty problem is to go out to significant consultation before any definition is decided on. Such a definition needs to capture the full army of carers whom we are seeking to encompass in the Bill. The preferred definition of Employers for Carers, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Autistic Society is:
	"Carers are employees with significant caring responsibilities that have a substantial impact on their working lives. These employees are responsible for the care and support of disabled, elderly or sick partners, relatives or friends who are unable to care for themselves."
	I understand that there is no point in having a consultation if we alight on a particular definition right at the outset, but I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that definition as the basis of a working consultation process.
	How are the provisions working at the moment? It is one thing to introduce a good piece of legislation; it is another thing for it to translate into effective action. Many employers already offer flexible working to groups outside the scope of the existing law. According to the Office for National Statistics, however, only a quarter of employees who are eligible to request flexible working have done so; four fifths of them have been successful. The Work Foundation report found that parents on low incomes were less successful in having their requests accepted. All those statistics illustrate that we still have a long way to go and that we need to be more proactive, particularly in helping carers who are not already in work or who do not belong to carers' groups. They fall below the radar, so we need to think more proactively about how we can inform them and engage with them.
	Another aspect of the debate on clause 12 relates to including the carers of children aged six to 18 who do not fall within the disabled category in the right to request flexible working. The phasing in of different groups is sensible, but I hope that we can look at this issue sooner rather than later. There are many children who do not fall into the categories for which we are legislating, but who need their parents to be around more than other children do. There are issues such as family breakdown, young children and older children with mental health problems, 16 and 17-year-olds who are beginning to develop schizophrenia, young girls who develop anorexia and teenagers with drug dependency.
	That said, the Bill will make an enormous difference to carers because it will enable them to spend the time that they need with the people who are important to them, and either to stay in or to take up work. For them, that is not just an economic advantage but provides a sense of self.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State and I are all formers members of the Standing Committee that considered the Employment Act 2002. That camaraderie aside, does he share my concern that the Secretary of State suddenly leapt up to the Dispatch Box with a set of figures of which, I suspect, most Members of the House and of the Committee are not aware? Does he agree that it is necessary for the House to have complete transparency in relation to the figures, rather than having the legislation apparently rushed through Committee by 25 December?

Gerry Sutcliffe: We need to nail the point about regulation. The principles that we are trying to implement are set out in the Bill. The Government are criticised for not consulting widely on the detail of the impact on business. That is what the secondary process of legislation is all about. There is the opportunity during that process for the Government to be questioned on the validity of regulations. Surely that is a better way forward for better scrutiny.

Helen Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to comment briefly on what I consider to be a good Bill. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is good for families, employers and society as a whole. I am sometimes bemused by the rather grudging tone of the Opposition, who present themselves as the party of the family but who, when we try to give families more rights, sound as if we are doing something dreadful.
	Let me begin by making the business case for what we are doing. It builds on what the Government have already done, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is also good for businesses. Employees perform better when they know that their child care needs, or the needs of those caring for their dependants, are being taken care of so that they can focus on their work. It is also much more valuable to businesses to keep staff whom they have trained and skilled than to lose them and have to re-employ and retrain others. Skills will be kept in the business.
	The needs of society as a whole must also be considered. If we want to create a good society, we must first create good citizens. That means investing time in our young people. We do that through education and, I hope, through the youth service, but it is most important to do it through the family. As a parent, I know that the most important thing we can give our children is time. That is particularly true during the important first year of life, but it is also true when children are ill, have special needs, or are particularly dependent on us in any way.
	The Bill represents an important step. It will help people to balance the demands of work and family life. One of the Government's great achievements has been to get so many people back to work. My constituency, parts of which were experiencing second or third-generation unemployment, now has almost full employment. Rightly, however, people are demanding more of us. They demand the ability to manage work and family responsibilities sensibly. The Bill will help us to provide that, and I welcome the extensions of maternity, paternity and adoption leave.
	I also welcome the clause that allows the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to annual leave, but I want to ask a question about it. I understand that it arises from the need to ensure that everyone is entitled to bank holidays, and that such holidays are not deemed to be part of annual leave. Currently, about 2.75 million people are not granted the bank holidays that most of us take for granted. I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether it is his intention that there should be a right to paid bank holidays, so that people who take a bank holiday as a day's leave receive holiday pay for it, and those who have to work on a bank holiday are entitled to a paid day's holiday in lieu.
	I want to raise a couple of questions on what is happening with maternity leave. Currently, six months is classed as ordinary maternity leave, and six months is classed as additional maternity leave. The right to additional leave is not much used at the moment, but I believe that it will be when three months of it becomes paid from 2007. However, I cannot see why we maintain the distinction between ordinary and additional maternity leave. I understand the need to protect the first six months to ensure that the mother is not pressurised to go back to work too early, but maintaining the distinction brings a number of unintended consequences that are a problem, particularly for poorer families.
	For example, a mother has the right to get her job back if she returns to work after ordinary maternity leave. If she returns after additional maternity leave, she has that right so far as is reasonably practical and, if she cannot have her old job back, she is entitled to one that is not substantially less favourable—I think that that is the phrase. Apart from creating a lot of work for employment tribunals that try to define those terms, evidence is accumulating that, particularly in the retail trade, women are being offered jobs on very different hours from those that they had previously worked and, often, it is difficult for them to manage on those hours. Therefore, they are being forced to reject those jobs and are falling into the poverty trap. I do not think that that is what the Government intended and we should examine that.
	The other problem is that, although those on ordinary maternity leave are classed as being in full-time work and therefore entitled to tax credits, those on additional maternity leave are not. Again, that impacts on poorer families, single parents, a parent whose partner works for fewer than 16 hours a week, or even parents who wish to go back to work part-time for fewer than 16 hours—many mothers may wish to do so, particularly if they are still breast-feeding—and whose partner then cannot claim the tax credits when the leave is transferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will undertake to examine those issues as the Bill goes through the House.
	On the tragic cases of mothers who die during child birth or shortly after, I am not sure that the comments of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) were accurate. As I understand it, currently, a father in those tragic circumstances is still entitled only to two weeks' paid paternity leave and four weeks' unpaid. The problem is that, when a family has been tragically bereaved, there are real problems not only in finding child care but perhaps in caring for other children. It is difficult to find child care for babies under three months old, and even with children over three months one usually has to make plans very early on, so we are forcing more stress on families that are already under great stress.
	Those cases are rare. I think that there were only 261 child birth-related deaths between 1999 and 2002—229 babies were born and more than 500 other children needed care. For that reason, I am sure that it is possible to ensure that families in those tragic circumstances are catered for. Since the Bill enshrines the right to transfer some form of maternity leave, I wonder whether the Minister would undertake to consider in Committee fathers who find themselves in that tragic situation and to see whether it is not possible to transfer the mother's rights to leave to those fathers. That would help those families at a very stressful time and prevent more families from falling into the poverty trap. If that is not done, fathers will often end up coming out of the work force to care for their children and find it difficult to get back into it.
	As I said, this is a very good Bill. It builds on what the Government have done, but there are one or two issues that I hope the Minister will undertake to consider as the Bill goes through Committee. If those issues were looked at, it would make it an even better Bill, provide better services for families and help to protect some of our most vulnerable children.

Julie Kirkbride: Not again, sorry.
	It is important that mothers, where they wish to do so, take maternity leave. It is also important that mothers should not be pressurised into thinking that they are being neglectful or inadequate if they feel that they cannot take maternity leave and they wish to go back to work, whether for their personal and professional development or because their families cannot afford for them to take maternity leave.
	I implore the Minister to take on board the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and endorsed by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that more flexibility should be attached to maternity leave. The Secretary of State pointed out that on the continent there are much more successful models of women being encouraged by family-friendly policies. There is a correlation between those countries where there are such family-friendly policies and the success of women at work. They are much more generous in maternity leave than we presently are in the UK. Therefore, a system whereby a woman can take six months' maternity leave but roll up the money she would receive to £212 a week, rather than the £106 a week for taking a year's maternity leave, might enable many more women to access maternity leave. That will begin to match the provision in other countries that are more successful at encouraging women to take maternity leave and to return to the work force at the level they left it without having to take career breaks, which inevitably mean that women fall back in the race for the top jobs.
	It is desirable that, where women want to, they stay at home to look after their children. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a shame that this Bill and the Childcare Bill, the Standing Committee of which I will serve on tomorrow, were not put together. There is considerable and growing evidence of the importance of what is called the attachment theory, with which the Minister is doubtless very familiar. It is very important that babies and young children form a profound bond with their primary carer in order to have proper emotional development later. The studies on this subject are quite frightening, given the mistakes that have already been made in not encouraging such bonding to take place. Attachment theory is subject to no class or income barriers; it is as relevant to professional families as it is to low-income ones.
	We should recognise that women who are able to afford to take such time off and to work on their relationship with their baby might find their baby quite frightening to begin with. For those of us who have been used to living a professional life—having things done when we want them to be done, and having our entire environment work to a time scale that we are in control of—being at home with a child is a truly different experience. We should enable women to deal with that situation in a less stressful environment. Of course, the same point applies to paternity leave. The average male wage is some £505 a week, so in calculating the average female wage, we can take 20 per cent. off that figure, which gives us a female wage of about £400 a week. Given those figures, it is much more realistic for women to take such time off.
	Although I am in favour of more flexibility and enabling women to take time off work, I want also to put a little of the employer's case. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) encouraged the Minister in somewhat the wrong direction in this regard. I do not dispute her motive in wanting women to be able to return to work without being required to accept more onerous and less attractive terms and conditions, but I want to draw attention to an issue that many employers mention to me. When a replacement employee comes in while someone is away on maternity leave, that creates a problem, particularly for small companies, which have much less flexibility in terms of the role played by other employees. This is a cost that society and business has to bear, and it is a fact of life if we want to carry on reproducing. However, extending maternity leave entitlement to one year creates an added difficulty. The person employed to take over that job for a year gets employment rights, because they are in post for the requisite period. Such rights cannot be got rid of—at least, not without a cost.
	The Minister is trying to work around this problem by doing something of which the hon. Member for Warrington, North is somewhat disapproving; nevertheless, I urge him to be cognisant of this issue when framing his proposals. After all, small businesses cannot afford to take someone on, only to have to get rid of them in an expensive and uncomfortable fashion because they have to maintain the right of the original employee to return to work. I am not saying that there is an easy answer to this problem; I am simply pointing out that the problem is a very real one for small businesses, and that in framing the law, we need to consider it.
	I welcome the Government's initiative enabling women to keep in touch with the workplace. Many women who are at home with their babies genuinely want to be kept in touch with the normal world that they were used to. It is good to be kept aware of what is going on in the company, rather than simply gossiping with one's old friends. The two-month, rather than one-month, notification period for returning to work will also help in dealing with the difficult issue of the replacement employee.
	Like other Members, I agree that the Government's giving carers the right to request flexible working has proved a very good idea, and I applaud their creating this opportunity for parents. There is no doubt that it has been successful, so we should say "Well done." It was successful because the Government were flexible—they are not always flexible—and created not a right to flexible working, but a right to ask for it. That helped to foster good relations between both parties, and to create an environment in which the employee can continue at work while dealing with their other responsibilities, and in which the employer can gain the value of their skills.
	It is right that carers, who have similar responsibilities, be included under this provision; however, the Government are right to phase in such rights. We live in a society in which many people have caring responsibilities, and that they fulfil them is wonderful for all concerned, but we need to consider how swiftly to phase in these new rights. I urge a little caution on the Minister; we must not swamp the system. It is right that such requests be annual, rather than frequent. Frequent requests would be unfair, given that employers have other considerations on their minds.
	We should extend the right to request flexibility to all the work force, as some employers already do, given that we will always come up against difficult child care cases. Children up to the age of 17 might well be dependent on their carers because they have schizophrenia or other mental health problems, for example. Of course, such problems do not go away: they continue into adulthood, and the parent may feel that they still need to care for their son or daughter well into their adult life. We want society to go in that direction, and some employers have already been successful in that regard; others should be given a little gentle encouragement to do the same.
	In concluding, I apologise to the next speaker for my having to rush off.

Mark Prisk: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), who clearly showed the House her expertise as a former employment rights lawyer, and I am sure that all hon. Members welcome her contribution.
	This is indeed a Bill of good intentions. For that reason, I support many of the intentions that were expressed so ably by the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. He was right to suggest that the concept of fairness should be at the heart of such legislation. That is why I say, with some disappointment, that there is a large group of families for whom fairness does not appear to be at the heart of the Bill. I refer to the 3 million or so families who run and own small businesses. All too often in such legislation, we tend to talk about families generally and we forget the peculiar circumstances of an owner-managed enterprise. I say that as both a grandson and a son of the owner of such an enterprise. It is therefore my intention in the short time that I have available to try to express the views of that group of families, rather than the others to which hon. Members have already referred.
	It is true to say that the Bill comes in a long line of similar legislation. We have had many employment and similar regulatory measures in the past few years. Indeed, since 1997, there has been a 53 per cent. increase in the regulatory burden on businesses, small and otherwise, and the net result is an additional 15 new regulations every working day. The cost to business, which the Government have accepted and is recognised among the leading experts in business, is now equated to £14 billion. That figure comes from the British Chambers of Commerce. Given the fact that 97 per cent. of all enterprises are small businesses, it is clear that the brunt of those costs fall on those firms.
	When we consider regulations, it is important to remember that these kinds of measures have a disproportionately large impact on the smallest firms. I highlight that in the context of the Bill by referring to an excellent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses on the amount of time that firms spend trying to comply with Government requests for information and regulations. Prior to the past six months or so, that figure had reached 28 hours for each firm every month. Each firm thus loses 336 hours a year.
	We normally discuss the productivity and competitiveness question, but we should also consider the time lost to the families of those who own and manage such enterprises. Families lose evenings, and fathers and mothers are sometimes unable to be part of a family Sunday. I used to run my own business, so I well recall the number of Sunday afternoons that I lost filling in the dreaded quarterly VAT return and a raft of other forms. I am worried that although we often—quite rightly—talk about the need to engage parents in bringing up their children, we forget that such legislation not only has a monetary cost for small businesses, but leads to people losing time in which they can participate in their children's upbringing.
	The irony is that the small firms to which I am referring often have the flexibility for which the Bill tries to legislate. They are the ones that lead because their owners know their employees. I can think of at least three businesses in my constituency that are owned and managed by people going back through several generations and have employees going back through several generations. The owners know about their employees' family situations, so they are able to work around them and to be flexible and engaging. I suspect that the response of the small businesses who read the Bill will be to say, "Hang on a moment. We are already doing this. Please don't restrain us by the dead hand of legislation." Of course there are enterprises that do not do such things, and they need to be examined and encouraged to change their habits. However, legislation is all too often a pair of handcuffs that does not enable change in the way in which I suspect that hon. Members would wish it to.
	Let me refer to several specific aspects of the Bill. We have debated the question of maternity leave, but I do not think that the scale of the change has been truly considered. We are talking about increasing maternity leave through two steps from six months to 12 months, which is a doubling of the amount and thus a significant change. The previous Bill, for which the Secretary of State was the Minister, increased the time period from 18 weeks to six months. That was manageable, but an increase from six months to 12 months is a different ball game altogether. The crossover to other legislation and the change in rights that that might well create have been referred to.
	I suspect that the Government did not take account of several matters when they considered the change. If a firm with two or three people loses a key worker for a year, it is tremendously disruptive. One must also take account of the cost of training the new individual, let alone the agency fees that are often incurred when employing that person. Of course, there will also be training costs involved when people return to work. I am not sure whether the Government have seriously considered the full costs involved. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he confirm whether the costs to which I have referred are specifically included in the regulatory impact assessment? I could not see that they were, but perhaps he has a sharper eye than me. I ask that question simply because if we are genuinely to understand the benefits and costs of the Bill, we must have the full information before us.
	Let me turn to what is loosely described as the transfer of parental leave. I appreciate that the provisions in the Bill do not reflect the Labour party's original intention. The concept of mothers and fathers sharing parental leave is good in principle, but what about the practicalities? It is likely that a mum and dad will work for different employers, so we must ask how the measure will be implemented. The Federation of Small Businesses said:
	"we fear that the plans will be highly complex and virtually impossible to enforce, with small employers facing an administrative nightmare as they try to comply."
	I have a question in my mind as the consultation proceeds. At the moment, it appears that the onus is on small businesses to manage the process, but why should that be the case? Small businesses are already asked to be unpaid tax collectors and unpaid benefit offices. Why should they now administer the Government's social policies? There could be a dangerous precedent. I do not want to make wild forecasts—the Minister knows that I will not try to do so—but I would like to know whether the Government have really thought the measure through.
	Given the inherent complexity of the measure, would it not be fairer if the Government took some responsibility for their own policies and introduced direct payment of both statutory maternity and paternity pay from state to employee? I know that the Minister touched on the matter earlier in the debate, but I would welcome any clarity that he can bring to our deliberations.

Alison Seabeck: We heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain the Government's intentions in introducing the Bill, including extending the maximum period for which maternity pay, maternity allowance and adoption pay are payable from 26 weeks to 52 weeks during the course of this Parliament, as well as introducing a new scheme that provides certain employees with a new entitlement to take leave to care for a child. In listening to the Secretary of State's remarks, I found myself drawn back to the time when my daughters were born and the position in which I, along with other mothers and, indeed, fathers, were in. I hope that the House bears with me if I draw a little on my personal experience. My daughters were born in 1981 and 1985, when the Conservatives were in power, and my entitlement was just 29 weeks post-confinement, supported by a payment of 90 per cent. of income over just six weeks. I was employed in a further education college and my husband was a town planner. Neither of us earned generous salaries and there was clearly a need for both of us to work. However, because I wanted to stay at home initially with my first child, I resigned from my full-time post and had to face finding a suitable part-time job and child care when the financial imperative kicked in and I needed to go back to work. After the birth of my second child, I returned to work immediately at the end of the statutory period, but I would have welcomed the keeping-in-touch days that are proposed.
	In a perfect world, I would have preferred to have had the option of remaining at home for a longer period or, indeed, of allowing my husband to take part of the leave to care for our children, a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher). Although the evidence suggests that the number of fathers wishing to take up the option is small, there are, none the less, those for whom it would be a very welcome option. Some 24 years on from my experience, there is clear evidence to show that both mothers and fathers believe that it should be the norm for there to be greater paternal involvement in the early months of their child's life. Indeed, in a recent Equal Opportunities Commission survey, seven out of 10 women and men agreed or agreed strongly that women's and men's lives are becoming more alike in terms of their need to balance work and family life.
	Opportunities to improve the work and caring balance have been lost in the past. For example, in November 1985, shortly after the birth of my second child, there was a debate in the House on parental and family leave. The then Conservative Government could have accepted a European Economic Community directive extending paternity rights, but they chose simply to note the directive. As that great campaigner for equal rights, the late Jo Richardson, commented at the time, it showed how out of touch they were with the day-to-day reality of people's lives. Unfortunately, one or two Conservative Members are still a little out of touch, although I acknowledge the positive comments from the Front Bench.
	A significant number of fathers probably want to take paternity leave but are unclear about their rights early enough in the process to plan properly. Evidence suggests that, in parallel to the powers in the Bill, an information campaign needs to take place to inform them of their rights. I am concerned that fathers whose earnings are below £20,000 per annum are less likely to find out about their rights prior to the birth of their child than those fathers whose income exceeds that figure.
	Given the findings of the Equal Opportunities Commission's survey "Dads and their babies", which was funded in part by the Department of Trade and Industry, I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether he accepts that there is a real job of work to be done to ensure that fathers are properly informed of their paternity rights from formal sources, rather than simply relying on friends and family for that information. Given that many of these important proposals require change via regulations, I also seek reassurance that there will be no significant delay in introducing them, allowing, of course, for the caveat that we need to consult on some of them.
	The Bill addresses not only the period immediately following the child's birth, but the need for further amendments to existing legislation to allow for greater flexibility of working to a wider range of individuals. Clause 12, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, gives carers the right to request flexible working for the first time. We know that in the region of 3.5 million carers are struggling to work as well as care. I share the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and the National Autistic Society have given to the clause. Without that flexibility, we lose a number of highly skilled workers who have to make a difficult decision between work and caring. Our economy can ill afford to lose the expertise of those workers, especially at a time of skills shortage. The cost to employers of recruiting and training new employees to fill their shoes is a burden, and I refer the House to the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	Enabling people to remain in the workplace also has the added advantage of enabling them to continue to build a better pension for themselves. I also welcome the proposed extension of rights to carers of adult dependants, but hope that in due course that freedom will be extended to parents of older children through the use of the regulatory powers in the Bill.
	It is still a little unclear where the age definition will fall, something that was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We need greater clarity on the definition of the relationship between the employee and the child or person over 18 who requires care. A number of employers, both large and small, already encourage flexible working, but there are different definitions of what they understand a carer to be. Let me give some examples. In Centrica's view:
	"If you are a carer, you have responsibilities, which have an impact on your working life. You will be responsible for the care and support of a disabled, elderly or sick partner, relative or close friend who is unable to care for themselves as they are ill, frail or have a disability."
	According to British Telecom:
	"A carer is an employee with significant caring responsibilities, which have a substantial impact on their working life. These employees will be responsible for the care and support of a disabled, elderly or sick partner, relative or friend",
	and HSBC defines carers as:
	"Employees who are the prime carer of a sick child, elderly, disabled or chronically sick relative or other close dependant."
	Each has a slightly different understanding of what a carer is, so it is important that we provide as simple and as flexible a definition as possible.
	That said, I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to the Minister's closing remarks.

Michael Weir: The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru welcome the Bill. We recognise that the rights it gives are an important step forward for men and women in employment. I should like to comment on one or two aspects.
	I join in the general welcome for clause 12. The extension to carers of the right to ask for flexible working is extremely important. I have met many carers in my time as a Member of Parliament and I have been struck by how many had to give up work to look after sick children or relatives and ended up relying on state benefits. When, sadly, their elderly relative dies, they often find it very difficult to get back into work. If the clause helps people to stay in work, it is very welcome and long overdue.
	I also welcome the provisions on paternity leave, but I ask the Minister to consider creating greater flexibility. I know that it will be difficult, but several hon. Members have mentioned that point. I look back to the time when my children were born. I was self-employed and was able to change my work patterns to tie in with what was needed and to be with my wife when our children were just babies. It was an important and useful thing to be able to do. As I see it, the problem with the Minister's proposal is that there no cross-over period—the mother will have the first six months and the father the second. We should find a way to work in a little flexibility to allow both parents to stay at home, especially when a child is first born. That could be very important, because it is often difficult for new and young parents, or in some cases not-so-young parents, to come to terms with the changes in their lives that a baby brings.
	It is also important that employers understand the rights in the Bill. Although we give employees rights, enforcing them is often a different matter. Good employers will always try to keep good employees and will bend over backwards to give them the consideration they need, but that is not true of all employers, and that is a problem. Other hon. Members will have received Citizens Advice's excellent booklet on the Bill, "Hard labour: Making maternity and paternity at rights at work a reality for all". Some of the case studies it contains are disturbing, but Citizens Advice also makes the valid point that
	"the Government's strategy in relation to these and other statutory workplace rights must include steps to ensure more universal compliance by small employers, including more pro-active enforcement against rogue employers."
	Although it is possible to take employers to an industrial tribunal, it is often not easy to do so. It is time consuming and many employees find the process of taking an employer to an industrial tribunal extremely difficult and daunting. I know from my experience as a solicitor representing people at industrial tribunals that it can also take a very long time.
	One group that does not appear to be adequately covered at present is those who are, as the Library note puts it, somewhat coldly,
	"commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements."
	I was encouraged by the Secretary of State saying in response to my earlier intervention that he would look again at that matter. My interest was prompted by a constituency case. My constituent could not obtain a decision from her employer about what, if any, rights she had to take time off to spend with her new baby. The case did not appear to be covered by either maternity or adoption leave legislation, and the couple were left in limbo. When they approached me, I thought that the matter should be treated in the same way as adoption, with which it had many similarities. However, that is not the case under the existing legislation, and there was no automatic right to leave or pay. I intervened with the employer—a major public sector employer—which, to its credit, accepted that the situation should treated in the same way as adoption and agreed to do so. However—and this is the point I wish to make—that was at its discretion, and my constituent did not have any automatic rights, which is unfair.
	I took the matter up with the Minister, who confirmed the legal position in a letter:
	"There is no specific statutory right for parents who have a child through surrogacy to take time off following the birth of their child, and currently no plans to change this."
	To be fair, he explained that maternity rights were originally a health and safety issue, but things have moved on. We are now talking about a work-life balance for families, and surrogacy is an important issue. The number of people involved is low, but the matter should be given due consideration.
	The Bill does not change the position, as the Minister accepted. When the Bill was published I asked the Library to prepare a briefing note, which confirmed that nothing has changed. That note now appears in the Library research paper, so perhaps I have secured my place in history by achieving a mention of the subject in such a paper. I urge the Minister to consider the particular circumstances of surrogacy as parents in that category appear to suffer discrimination.
	When I first became involved in the matter I assumed, perhaps naively, that some form of adoption would be required, but there are several different methods of dealing with surrogacy. The Library briefing cites the submission to the Government's original consultation by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, which puts the matter very well:
	"In these circumstances the commissioning mother usually has the baby soon after the birth but cannot formally adopt until six weeks after the birth. Clearly she will need to take leave from the date she receives the baby but currently she has no statutory rights to any pay or leave, even after the formal adoption."
	If that is indeed the case, the mother is in a disadvantaged position. Had there been no surrogacy agreement but only an adoption, she would have been entitled to rights under adoption regulations. However, because of the surrogacy she does not have any rights whatsoever.
	Various legislative proposals apply in surrogacy arrangements, and different means by which parental rights are given to the intended parents and the parental rights of the surrogate mother extinguished. As well as formal adoption, parental orders can be imposed, allowing a married couple who commission the surrogate birth to apply for an order so that they are treated in law as the parents of the child. That is not necessarily a quick process because, as in all cases that involve children, the court would have to be convinced that the welfare of the child was secure. Similarly, it may be possible for a commissioning father to apply to the courts for a parental responsibility order by virtue of the fact that he is the genetic father of the child. I am not sure of the position in English law, but in Scotland such an order would have to be accompanied by a residency order to specify that the child is to reside with the father and his wife—the child's putative mother. If that order was not granted, the original order would not do much good. In any event, the parental responsibility order would not give any automatic rights to the wife of the applicant. Even though she would almost certainly be the main carer, she would not necessarily obtain any benefit though time off or pay. Those procedures may not work as intended.
	It is particularly strange that that point has not been covered by the legislation as the legal frameworks for surrogacy and adoption are closely related. It is iniquitous that parents in a surrogacy arrangement should have no automatic legal rights, but must rely on their contract of employment. In my constituent's case that worked out—it might not in other cases—so I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter and ensure that all families are treated equally. After all, in his letter to hon. Members of 19 October, the Secretary of State specifically stated that the Bill would
	"deliver our commitment to give parents more choice about how they balance their work and family life".
	That should be as true of those seeking a family through surrogacy as it is of those seeking a family through any other means. For the sake of fairness and completeness, I urge the Minister to re-examine the matter and introduce proposals to include such a measure in the Bill.

Kitty Ussher: I do not favour that, because it would send out the wrong signal. We should either support someone on parental leave or not support them. I note the hon. Gentleman's general point. I hope that take-up by new fathers will be high, because fathers and families would benefit from that. However, it is not up to Government to tell families how they should organise their lives. We should provide an enabling environment so that they can make the choices that work for them.
	The Bill will allow both parents to be equal at the end of the first year, if that is what they want. The mother can take the first six months off, during which time the father continues to work. The father can then take the second six months off while the mother returns to work to seek promotion opportunities and whatever else she wants to do. That is a wholly advantageous move that we should all support.
	I want to take my example a little further. Earlier, I asked the Secretary of State about a situation in which a woman wants to go back to work after three months. We should not force her to do so, but I can imagine many situations where she might want to, perhaps because she likes working or because she is in a sufficiently senior position in the organisation that she is genuinely worried that there will be negative business effects if she does not go back—or, God forbid, she is a Member of Parliament whose constituents could not tolerate the idea of her having six months off. Colleagues will know that I have some experience of that.
	It would be wrong if the mother wanted to go back to work when the baby was three months old and the father wanted to take over but the legislation or regulations did not allow it. The mother would have to remain at home for the second three months to wait for the father to be allowed to take over, thereby damaging her business, or they would have to employ another form of child care for that period. That would be unnecessarily disruptive for the child if both parents wanted to share the year between them. When I mentioned that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he said that it was not favoured in the consultations. I have read those, however, and some groups did favour it, particularly Fathers Direct, which claims to speak for a large interest group on this matter and should not be ignored.
	Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that women should breast-feed for six months—so does the Department of Health, but it also recommends several other things including not smoking, not drinking too much, and eating five portions of fruit and veg each day. In the end, it is up to individuals to decide how they wish to interpret such advice. If the Government really think that women should breast-feed for six months, they should legislate to that effect, but I am sure that they do not think that women should be forced to do so. In fact, the Government have, I am proud to say, introduced regulations that require employers to provide areas where women can breast-feed or—without troubling the House with too much technicality—express milk and so on. I therefore urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider as they consult further whether greater flexibility should be allowed on the matter.
	In summary, the Bill will transform the culture of our workplaces, and that is excellent. It will help to provide male and female role models to whom young parents can look when they decide how to balance their work and family lives. It will lead to less, not more discrimination. It will be good for small and large companies as they realise that the measure requires them to think beyond their existing talent pool. That is good for our economy and for families in this country.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. However, if he had had to bring up those children at home, rather than working in the House of Commons, he would understand that it was actually rather hard work. When my wife was bringing up our first two children and I was working away from home, she was working exceptionally hard on something that was of great benefit not only to our family but, ultimately, to the nation.
	The balance has now swung so far in favour of making people go out to work that there are huge financial disadvantages for the traditional family. The Care report examines 74 couples, and found that 64 of them would have been better off financially if they lived apart. It also showed that, on average, a couple lost £58 a week by staying together rather than living apart. One of the families studied, with average earnings of £25,000 a year, would gain £206 a week—yes, £206 a week—by splitting up. Where are the incentives in the Bill to keep families together? Children will always do better if they are brought up in a loving and secure family environment. I am not saying that financial reasons are the only factor involved when a couple split up, but they certainly play a big part.
	The tax credit system is, by its very nature, flawed. Since coming to Parliament in May, I have been inundated by worried constituents who have been victims of a system that is so ambiguous and complicated, with so many forms to be filled in, that many of them have been penalised. Let me give the House a specific example. I have had a mother crying in my office, fearful that the family would have to sell their home because they had had their tax credits stopped and had received a demand from the Inland Revenue for thousands of pounds in overpaid tax credits. When I looked at the situation, I found that my constituents had done nothing wrong; it seemed to be a gross error by the tax credit office. However, that did little to relieve the despair and hurt caused to my constituents by the tax credit system.
	The problem with this Government is that they believe that all mothers want to return to work for a career. They do not even consider the possibility that some mothers want to stay at home to bring up their children; that is not in their psyche. The Bill is only half a Bill; it addresses one issue but totally ignores the other.

Madeleine Moon: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern), especially with his story of his father's management of the birth of his sister. Only recently, I had a discussion with my mother, who is 91. I talked about the birth of my younger sister and of overhearing my father saying to his employer over the telephone that he could not come into work because I had been misbehaving. He said that I had been behaving very badly following the birth of my younger sister. I told my mother that I had been shocked to hear that call. I had been given a wonderful present of some whimsies and I thought that I had been behaving well.
	At 87, my mother told me rather belatedly, "Good grief, you were not behaving badly. It was just an excuse to get him off work because I needed him at home to look after you. We did not have all this leave in those days and your father had run out of his leave." For years, people had been lying to employers, managing employment situations and falsely creating impressions to manage family responsibilities. It is ludicrous that we lived in that world.
	Last night, I watched Ian Hislop, who appeared in a programme about the way in which the role of women in society was changed by the great war, when they were needed to take on jobs and responsibilities because men were at the front. Years of suffrage had not secured women the vote. The experience of seeing how women rose to the challenge of the workplace led to suffrage being extended to women. That extension of suffrage changed British society. I see the Bill as being very much part of another great change that is taking place in British society. We need to recognise that parents and carers are critical to our future, and that as a society we should support them.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) that the Government were trying to force women into the workplace. There is an element of truth in what he said. We have a falling birth rate. We have a falling number of people in the pool of those available to work, because we have high levels of employment. We have an ageing society, and we have an increasing number of people needing care and support. If we are to provide for those who want to work, those who need to work and those whose lifestyles have been limited by poverty, social isolation and caring responsibilities, we must engage in a new way of working. We must engage in a new relationship between society and working people, be they parents or carers of older people. We need to build into our work force regulation both flexibility and choice.
	Last week I was in the Chamber debating the Childcare Bill, which recognised the importance of quality-based care for children, parents, employers and Government. Speaker after speaker acknowledged the importance of parents' spending time with their children in the early years. The Bill introduces a change in maternity and adoption pay, which will enable parents to remain at home for 39 weeks by April 2007. The goal of eventually providing a year's maternity leave is one that we should all embrace and welcome.
	I ask the Minister, however, to consider a possible change. If we are to support the 61,000 people who adopt children each year, we must ensure that maternity pay and adoption pay are of equal value, recognising that the role that they play as parents is equally important. Statutory maternity pay is currently 90 per cent. of salary for the first six weeks, and £106 a week for the next 20 weeks. Statutory adoption pay is £106 a week for 26 weeks. I should like the first six weeks of statutory adoption pay to be 90 per cent. of salary, which would bring it into line with maternity pay and send adopters a clear message that their financial recognition as parents is equal, like their status in law.
	I welcome the change that allows parents, particularly mothers, to return to work for training or appraisals while receiving maternity or adoption pay. For adopters in particular, a placement may be sudden. They and their employers must have time to adapt to their leave to take on child care responsibilities. That flexibility and choice is imperative for natural, birth parents and for adoptive parents.
	I do not want to be seen as the Member of Parliament who always quotes from The Western Mail—[Hon. Members: "Oh, go on."] It is too late. Last week, The Western Mail—every Welsh Member's morning reading—reported that, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales, many women in Wales are still affected by poverty, isolation and exclusion. David Rosser, director of CBI Wales, admitted that women still dominate in child care responsibility, and that until men take equal caring responsibility in society, that will prove difficult to address. In 2005, we are still talking about women having a disproportionate experience of poverty, isolation and exclusion.
	Paternity leave was the first step of both Government and society to move towards giving men equal caring responsibilities. I hope that we can introduce changes to make the two weeks' paternity leave more family friendly. Too many fathers are excluded from paternity leave because of the need to give 15 weeks' notice, which employers do not really need. Fathers can take paternity leave up to eight weeks after the birth. However, a father's support and care may be more appropriate later than eight weeks after the birth. The child may become ill. The mother may remain ill in hospital. As we all know, doting grandparents flock in after the birth. It may be more appropriate for the father to be around later on. Perhaps we could look at breaking down the two-week period into two separate one-week opportunities for a break. It would create no additional costs for employers, give employers and families greater flexibility and could be of far greater value to families.
	In the Childcare Bill debate, I spoke of how families with children with disabilities are one of society's most disadvantaged groups, with 55 per cent. living in poverty, in serious debt and with both parents and children living in loneliness and social isolation. That picture of poverty and isolation can be extended to most people with caring responsibilities. I welcome the Bill's extension of the right to seek flexible working to all carers and adults. However, I believe that that right should be extended to cover all children until they have left school. As all parents know, children need the support of their parents at different stages of their lives. A child could be going through a period of illness, of difficulty at school or that most difficult of periods, adolescence, when they need a parent at home to give them the support and structure to guide them through that difficult process. If we do not have that flexibility, we are not building in the support that families, children and parents need.
	There are 6 million carers in the United Kingdom, 3 million of whom are working, who will welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to tackle the stress, social isolation and, for many, the poverty created by caring. The peak ages for becoming a carer are 45 to 64. Eighty per cent. of carers fall within that working age band. Their experience, skills—

Eleanor Laing: No. I am glad the Minister asked that question. I am not committing my party to anything; I was saying that it was worth looking at the point further. I am not ruling it out. It would be just as easy for me to say, "No, we absolutely rule it out", but we do not. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North made some important points and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to consider them further in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) is right to stress the importance of the balance between employees and employers. He made the important point that just because discrimination against women is illegal does not mean that some employers will not find a way around the law. That is what lawyers are for, so I stress again the importance of keeping the legislation simple and balanced.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) put well the case for small businesses. It is vital that the Government respect their position. After all, most employees work for small businesses.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) was right in what she said. I do not disagree with the detail of the contributions made by Labour Members. We are all trying to achieve the best from the Bill and I hope that we can go into it in more detail in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) raised an issue that the Government had not taken into consideration: surrogacy. I hope that we can amend the Bill in Committee to take account of what he said. It is right that a child born of a surrogate mother should be treated appropriately, not exactly in the same way as the child of a birth mother or an adopted child, but not left out of the provisions altogether.
	The hon. Gentleman also addressed the issue of enforcement through tribunals. We do not want to encourage more litigation as a result of the Bill. It is much better to have reasonable, balanced law that need not be broken by either side.
	The hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) also speaks with authority, because she probably has the youngest child of any female Member.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady speaks with authority on this matter because she has a very small baby, and it is quite understandable that she will not have time to discuss any matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire because she cannot possibly have time while balancing her duties in the House and in her constituency with such a small baby.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned some vital aspects of the Bill. Parents' time with children is an essential part of helping to create and nurture children and therefore the next generation. Parents who have jobs are doing two jobs, especially the mothers of small children who also have a job outside the family, and we should respect that fact, but my hon. Friend is right: looking after a home and children is an important and extremely hard job. In my own humble opinion, it is the hardest job that there is, and I am glad that I do not have to do it full-time. We must respect women who choose to stay at home and look after their families. They must also have rights.
	The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) gave us a very good historical canter around what used to happen. I am glad that we live in more enlightened times.
	Much of the Bill is reliant on subsequent regulations that we have not yet seen. This is the third Bill in a month to which I have spoken from the Dispatch Box—I assume therefore that this must apply to many more—for which there has been a very short period, usually eight days, between the debate on Second Reading and the beginning of consideration in Committee and for which the Committee stage will be commenced too early and be rushed. We have had to examine Bills in Committee without the benefit of having the regulations before us. I hope that that will not happen with this Bill. It is hard to imagine why the Government are in such haste to push the Bill through. Another couple of weeks so that we could have the regulations in front of us to give the Bill proper consideration would have been much better.
	In conclusion, we all want the Bill to work, so it must have flexibility and balance between employer and employee because we only have jobs to talk about in the context that we have been discussing them this evening if we have a successful economy, and we only have a successful economy if we have competitive businesses. So if anything in the Bill undermines the competitiveness of businesses, the Bill will backfire. I do not want that to happen; I want the business community and families to have confidence in the legislation that we have examined this evening. We want to examine the Bill further in Committee. We therefore want it to have a Second Reading. We will not oppose it this evening, but we look forward to improving it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have listened with great interest to the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House. We have heard contributions from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) and, latterly, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).
	All hon. Members who have contributed to the debate understand what the Government are trying to achieve through the Bill. The Government have clearly set out their strategy in their three terms and they will develop it further in their fourth. Given the legacy of the previous Government, our first term was about getting people back into work. The second term was about fairness at work and getting the balance of fairness in the workplace right. The third term has been about the world of work.
	All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said that the world of work has changed dramatically. This country faces demographic changes due to a reducing birth rate and the fact that people are, thankfully, living longer. We need to ensure that we get as many people back into work as possible. I was grateful and delighted that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen said that the business case had been made for the Bill because it is right and proper that that is the language in which we talk.
	All hon. Members agree that every child deserves the best possible start in life. The Bill attempts to achieve that by providing more choice and flexibility for families when balancing work and caring responsibilities. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Bill includes measures to help employers to manage the administration of leave and pay and to plan ahead with greater confidence and certainty. It will enable better interaction between parents and employers, which was surely the point that the hon. Member for North Norfolk made when he said that it was important to get employers and employees to sit down together so that they can work through the needs of the business and their own needs, too.
	That is the context of the different style of approach on employment relations in this country that the Government have tried to introduce. We have tried to move away from the adversarial times of the 1970s and 1980s and towards more consensus. We face global challenges and demographic changes. There is a need for employers to understand the needs of their employees because the labour market is tight, more people are in work than ever before and we have such a low level of unemployment. However, employees must also understand the needs of business because they can change due to globalisation. The business case for the Bill has been made and it is important that there is a new regime of understanding by both employers and employees.
	We all know that enabling people with caring responsibilities to work means that the UK economy benefits and that employers can recruit from a wider talent pool and retain the people in whom they have invested. The Bill will result not only in more choice and flexibility for families, but help to achieve greater equality by enabling men to spend more time caring for their children and encouraging women back into the workplace.
	Many people have put their credentials as new men or women on the table, so I will put my credentials on the table. I am a parent of three boys and I have three grandchildren—[Hon. Members: "Surely not."] I know that it is hard to believe. I was thus a little taken aback when the hon. Member for Wellingborough said that Ministers do not understand the needs of youngsters and children and the requirements when bringing them up. I accept that some women make the choice to stay at home and bring up their children. Indeed, some men now want to stay at home to look after their children, especially in the first year of their lives. As the whole House has agreed, there is a benefit if people are with their children during those first 12 months.
	The package is good news for working parents and employers. It represents a big step forward on giving children the best start in life and enabling all families to have genuine choices about how they balance their work and family caring responsibilities. The changes will support employers in recruiting and retaining the best people, thus keeping much needed skills and experience in the workplace. In February, we published the consultation document "Work and Families: Choice and Flexibility" and consulted widely on how to take forward the commitments set out in our 10-year child care strategy.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It took the Conservatives a long time to get anywhere, and they did not get to the stage of benefiting working people.
	We have ensured that there is the opportunity for broad consensus on the measures because of the change in economic circumstances and the need to get people back into work, if that is what they want to do. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead said that we should have put the provisions alongside the measures in the Childcare Bill that has come from the Department for Education and Skills. She will know that the scope of the Bills is different. The Opposition would have attacked us for not taking into account the interests of business had we put them together. She will understand why there is a separate Bill and why we need to look at it in detail.
	The Bill sets out minimum standards. The reality is that most good employers already see the business case for ensuring that their employees are well treated and that they retain employment. Surely the Government's role is to set out a series of minimum standards so that people do not fall below what is expected.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) was grateful for the Government's work on the role and value of carers. She raised a particular issue on the definition of carers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will consider that in great detail and ensure that we listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to the various bodies that need to give us their view on what the definition should be. We need to balance the responsibilities and rights of employers and employees.
	The point was made that some employers will not employ women of childbearing age. That is a disgrace. We need to highlight the bad business sense of doing that and ensure that people know that it is illegal to discriminate in that way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North welcomed the Bill and asked whether the bank holiday entitlement would be paid. Our manifesto commitment was that bank holidays should be an additional, paid entitlement. She also asked us to consider what should happen in the tragic cases in which the mother dies after childbirth. I shall do that and I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend and others have to say about what we can do in such circumstances.
	Unusually, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove welcomed the Government's progressive policies on work and families, but she asked for more flexibility in maternity leave. She explained the role of management and middle managers, who have to understand the need for maternity leave and for good employment practices to ensure that people are looked after. She asked about the changes to employment law relating to a replacement employee who might be in place for up to 12 months. She said that that person would get employment rights and asked what their situation would be. Clearly, a contract would be entered into at the outset of the replacement explaining the reasons for that period of employment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North also asked about the definition of carers. She gave a moving account of how she cares for her 94-year-old mother, with the help of an army of carers, mainly women. She made an important point about the way in which caring responsibilities affect carers' ability to advance their careers, or to obtain employment in the first place. She acknowledged the success of the Employment Act 2002, but also raised important issues relating to sleep deprivation and other factors that affect the work-life balance.
	The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, spoke of his experience as the son of a single mother, commonly known as a latch-key kid. He emphasised the balance that we have to strike between the role of the employer and the role of the employee. He read out a list of things that he said are contributing to a lack of competitiveness in the job market by cumulatively putting a burden on business. The most notable item on that list was the national minimum wage, although he repented of having voted against the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Good businesses want to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage compared with bad employers or rogue employers, and our debate has focused on what good employers should do and on ensuring that they are not disadvantaged because poor employers do not do those things. That is why the legislation is important.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was scathing about the fact that the Government have not taken into account the costs of the Bill. He wants us to delay its implementation, but that is not appropriate. We have tried to ensure that the costs are reflected in the regulatory impact assessment and I am sure that the details will be examined in Committee.
	A range of detailed issues have been raised this evening, and in the time allowed I cannot answer all of them. However, as is my wont, I shall write to hon. Members on those detailed issues. I know from previous experience that we will have the opportunity to discuss them in Committee. The good thing about tonight is that we have had the opportunity to discuss the Bill in the round. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8630/05 and Addendum I, draft Council Directive on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and draft Council Decision amending Council Decision 80/424/EEC on expenditure for the veterinary field; and supports the Government's objective of agreeing measures for the control and eradication of avian influenza.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Jamie Reed: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I want to get on. If he has any telling or pressing points, we can discuss them outside the House or he can write to me.
	I urge the Minister and his Department to pay close attention over the coming months to this unfolding issue and, in particular, to the principles that I have outlined: equity of access and of standards. At this point, I ask the Minister to assess the funding formula for the NHS within the forthcoming White Paper and ensure that issues such as socio-economic factors and sparsity of population are addressed.
	Returning to the PCT, only this Friday I met clinical staff at Millom community hospital and the friends of Millom hospital to discuss the PCT's proposals. I expected anger, anxiety and dejection among those whom I was to meet, but I must extend to the Minister their sincere thanks and appreciation following his intervention. Like me and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, the staff, friends and users of Millom hospital were delighted to learn about the Minister's intervention and are now hopeful for the future, given the plan that he has identified. The people of Keswick, Maryport, Cockermouth and Workington are also equally grateful.
	The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the plan states that West Cumbria PCT is in line for a record cash boost over the next two years totalling more than £30 million, which is nearly twice this year's underlying deficit. Local health chiefs must spend that money wisely following a much needed detailed debate and consultation on how to redesign services for the better. Over the next three months, the consultation in west Cumbria, which, as I understand it, will be undertaken by the strategic health authority rather than the PCT, will explain how the existing infrastructure of community facilities will be expanded. The Minister will visit west Cumbria in the new year to ensure that all of the above takes place.
	As a result, the PCT's proposals have, as I had hoped, been withdrawn. Let me assure the Minister that at no point did anyone believe that those proposals belonged to the Government. There is widespread acknowledgement of the fact that Labour is the only party with the interests of the NHS at heart. The Minister might be interested to learn that in my constituency at the last general election the Conservatives campaigned on a platform of reduced health spending and health service privatisation, and received their worst result for almost 100 years. The persistent and continual Conservative threat to the health services of west Cumbria rightly led to the Tories in Copeland receiving the lowest number of votes since the NHS was introduced. That damning condemnation of the Tories' health policy, and attitude, shows precisely how the people of Copeland and west Cumbria value their health services. I can put it no better than a farmer constituent who told me at the weekend that he would rather let a fox look after his chickens than let the Tories look after the NHS.
	Two groups are central to any consultation and redesign of services in west Cumbria—patients and staff. Patients are not slow in coming forward with their views. Civic engagement is evidently lacking in several policy areas, but health is not one of them. However, sufficient consideration needs to be given to the views, hopes, concerns and often wise and insightful suggestions of front-line service providers in west Cumbria. Having spoken to a good number of health care professionals from across a broad spectrum of services and professional standing, I know that all too often they do not feel that their knowledge and experience is valued, or even considered relevant, when management boards launch consultations. I urge the Minister to ensure that the new consultation in west Cumbria pays sufficient attention and proper regard to the views of health care professionals, who will after all deliver the model of care that is agreed on.
	West Cumbria PCT, against a background of record investment, is projecting a recurring deficit for next year of approximately £15 million. It is absolutely right that all trusts should be expected to balance their books. However, the fundamental question that lies at the heart of this debate is this: where has the money gone? I know that the Minister is as keen as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington to find the answer, and I hope that he can help us in that endeavour, particularly in light of the effective doubling of investment since 1997. It is clear that the various trust boards serving west Cumbria are not working together. West Cumbria cannot sustain a viable health economy on that basis. I therefore ask for the Minister's help in achieving this for the benefit of all its health service staff and patients.
	One of the most pressing medical issues in west Cumbria is its lack of dentists. I appreciate that that does not fall within the Minister's brief and is the responsibility of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), but it is entirely relevant to the scope of this debate. I was recently honoured to welcome the university of Central Lancashire to the Westlakes science park in my constituency, where the university has established a significant permanent presence. UCLan has an excellent academic and medical research record. On the strength of that, I approached the vice-chancellor and the dean of the Westlakes campus to discuss the possibility of the university's helping to expand dentistry provision throughout west Cumbria. I am pleased to say that it has, as part of a higher education consortium involving Lancaster university, the university of Liverpool and St. Martin's college, submitted a bid to the Department of Health, which if successful would see a dental school established in west Cumbria.
	This week, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I will write officially to the appropriate Minister to express our support for the bid and to outline precisely the direct and exponential benefits that such a development would have in west Cumbria with regard not only to dental provision but the wider health service agenda. I hope that the Minister will urge his departmental colleagues to give due detailed consideration to the bid.
	I thank the Minister for the close personal attention and effort that he has given to this issue. I look forward to meeting him in west Cumbria in the new year, when I hope that we can progress the agenda of improving the health services serving west Cumbria in a sustainable, effective and permanent manner, while serving the needs and aspirations of patients and staff.

Liam Byrne: I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing this debate. He has not been in this House for long, but he has already established himself as a powerful advocate for his local community and as a voice on health issues in particular. It was in one of my first debates as a Front Bencher that I heard his contribution to the debate about dentistry. If he will forgive me, I will pass on the comments that he made this evening to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).
	My hon. Friend has come to the House tonight to ensure that health care provision in his constituency is debated on the Floor. In congratulating him, I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). His position on the Front Bench precludes his contributing to the debate, but he has contacted me on five or six occasions in the past week to give me counsel about how best to tackle the issue in his community. I should like to put on record my thanks to him for that. I also congratulate the Evening Mail and the Workington Times and Star on their excellent coverage of the debate. They have proved once again that they are a powerful voice for their local community.
	In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, I want to elucidate three lines of debate. The first is about the future finances for health care in his constituency. The second deals with the sort of health care provision that we might expect for that money over the next few years. The third is the manner and method whereby decisions about the future of health care will be made.
	I should like to begin with a few words of thanks and praise for the front-line national health service staff in my hon. Friend's area who have seized the record investment and reform of the past few years to transform the health service locally. I was glad that he could celebrate their role so eloquently this evening.
	The transformation of the NHS in my hon. Friend's constituency has been remarkable. Our funding for the NHS has been at great and record levels in the past few years. From £34.7 billion in 1997, we have increased spending by nearly £70 billion in 2004–05. What does that mean for my hon. Friend? He partly answered that question himself. In this financial year, West Cumbria primary care trust will get £145 million—a real-terms increase of nearly 6 per cent. in the past year.
	If we compare such increases with those that we enjoyed—if that is the right word—under the previous Administration, we realise that, in their last five years, the average real-terms increase for the NHS was only 2.6 per cent. Indeed, in their entire 18 years in office, it was only 3 per cent.
	My hon. Friend asked where the increased funding has gone. I am glad to be able to provide some answers. More than 150 consultants have worked in Cumbria and Lancashire strategic health authority area, in which his constituency sits, since 1997. More than 3,000 nurses and more than 1,800 health care assistants now work there, thanks to the investment that we have made since 1997.
	With the extra staff come shorter waits. The number of people in Cumbria and Lancashire who wait more than six months for in-patient treatment has dropped by an extraordinary 90 per cent. since 1997. The number of people who wait 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment has dropped by more than 85 per cent. since 1998.
	With shorter waits come better drugs, which, with the extra staff, have delivered longer lives. The mortality rate in west Cumbria from coronary heart disease has fallen by around 29 per cent.—an extraordinary fall. Cancer mortality rates are down by more than 9 per cent. since 1997. Good progress has been made but a great deal more remains to do. That is why extra investment is being routed to my hon. Friend's constituency.
	My first line of argument is therefore about the increased resources to my hon. Friend's constituency. Funding in his PCT has increased from £112 million to £145 million. It is set to rise again from £145 million to £188 million in 2007–08. My maths makes that an increase of approximately £43 million. The underlying deficit at the beginning of the year was around £17 million; the increase over the next two years is more than two and a half times the current deficit.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the funding formula. He pointed out that it still contains a few imperfections in his constituency. He referred to socio-economic conditions and sparsity. It is right to review the formula again. I cannot promise answers in the forthcoming White Paper, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will introduce amendments in due course. Great investment has therefore been made.
	My second line of argument is about what the money should buy in my hon. Friend's constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. Here we can see an extraordinary choice for the NHS over the next couple of years, in regard to how to use the new money to build local health services that meet the needs of constituents in a sustainable way. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that £45 million will buy some quite interesting choices, including how much to invest in hospitals, how much to invest in local doctors' services, how much to invest in community hospitals, and how much to spend on public health. Such choices have not been enjoyed by many NHS staff for some years.
	My hon. Friend helpfully alluded to our manifesto commitment to deliver a new generation of community hospitals. We made a commitment to bring on line 50 new or refurbished hospitals over the next five years. These state-of-the-art centres will provide diagnostics, day surgery and out-patient facilities that are much closer to where people live and work. We made that commitment because we were aware of the great potential of community hospitals to enhance the delivery of health care for local people.
	The new community hospitals will help us to move care and diagnostic services out of acute hospitals. They will also make it easier to put together primary and social care services, and encourage GPs to provide more specialist services. Modern community hospitals will provide safe services for people much closer to where they live, which is central to our vision for the NHS.
	It is important, however, that these services should be provided in a sustainable way. My hon. Friend talked about the decades of uncertainty in his constituency; we must end that uncertainty. In May, the British people asked us to write a big cheque, but not a blank cheque, for the future of NHS reform. As we deliver care closer to people's homes and reduce the reliance on in-patient services, we must do so in a way that will stand us in good stead for the future.
	The primary care trusts are planning to consult on proposals for changing the shape of community services, with the aim of delivering services such as an improved community nursing infrastructure that is better able to support people at home and will therefore avoid the trauma and cost of inappropriate hospital admissions. We hope that that infrastructure will make it easier to discharge patients following a hospital stay. We also want the services to include therapy units to provide multi-disciplinary assessment and centre-based therapy. This is all about putting care much closer to people's homes. My hon. Friend mentioned the role of acute hospitals in the future, and I hope that that issue will be reflected on in the consultation.
	My third line of argument relates to the manner in which these decisions will be debated and, ultimately, made. In the months to come, the primary care trust will be seeking to understand how to take forward services in my hon. Friend's area. Its proposals will be judged against three simple criteria. First, are they safe, and will they improve patient care? Secondly, are they affordable in the short term, inside the envelope of the enlarged resources that we are making available? Thirdly, are they sustainable for the long term? I am pleased to say that the focus of the reshaped services will be on recycling community assets wherever practical.
	I would add that, while health organisations must determine the broad strategies and face the challenges of matching the extra resources that we are providing to the provision of local services, it is essential that, as they go about answering those questions, they do not overlook the perspective of local service users. It is therefore intended that any proposals for change in community services in Cumbria will go to public consultation in the new year.
	My hon. Friend alluded to the public listening exercises that we have undertaken as we have prepared the White Paper, "Your Health, Your Care, Your Say". Members of the public have been asked what improvements they wish to see in community health and social care. In the new year we will present our plans for reforming the way in which local health organisations are accountable to their local communities for shaping services, so that, we hope, these debates will have a different texture and tone in future.
	Clearly, however—this is an important point for my hon. Friends—the debate on the outcome of the Cumbria consultation will have to include an analysis against recommendations included in the White Paper.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is concerned about emerging proposals in the public consultation. I am glad to be able to tell him that in order to review those options properly, and in the light of our ongoing work in the new health White Paper, the launch of the consultation has now been moved to late January or February of next year.
	It is unacceptable for my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland to have had so little involvement in the development of plans to date. It is not acceptable that he is briefed about plans only through friends and colleagues whom he might have in the primary care trust. I therefore assure him that there will be no fait accomplis, cabals or decisions made behind closed doors. The national health service is under statutory obligations in relation to the way that it runs consultation and its conversation with the public. I am therefore pleased that the director of corporate affairs at the strategic health authority, who is extremely experienced in consultation exercises, will support the primary care trust during the process over the coming weeks and months. I will take a watching brief on the development of the proposals, and I understand that before the document goes for public consultation it will be shared with my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington. I plan to make a visit in the new year to see how the consultation is unfolding locally.
	I encourage my hon. Friends to continue to battle the corner for their constituents, and to engage with their local NHS on the way forward. Some decisions will need to be thought through carefully, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland and his constituents will take the opportunity of the consultation exercise to make sure that their views and ambitions for the future are fully reflected in the blueprint that emerges.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.